Evidence for a god existing or not existing

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, what was my lie? I don’t think I lied.

But, please tell, how do you know it?

You lied when you said this, and then you ran away:

"Thanks, I thought you can’t offer anything. There is no intelligent reason to believe that there was never a worldwide flood."

You know that I can refute the flood myth. I offered to do so. Instead of discussing it you broke the Ninth Commandment and ran away. Not very "Christian" of you.

And I know it because certain events would leave clear evidence. A lack of evidence can be evidence against an idea.

Here is a simple example. You have a good friend. She is honest in just about everything. (we all fib now and then). She calls you up crying hysterically telling you how a herd of bison just stampeded through her kitchen. You run to her house and it is spotless, no damage. Nothing. Was she telling the truth? Did a herd of bison stampeded through her kitchen?

 

[McBell]

Without proof, that is meaningless claim to me.

I seriously doubt that there will be much of anything that can convince you of something you do not want to be convinced of.
So your Kent Hovind defense fails outside the choir.

 

[Etritonakin]

If that's the case you seem very shy to correcting my error.

Sometimes there is not yet common ground.

 

[1213]

...
You know that I can refute the flood myth...

I know you can’t. There is simply nothing you can offer to prove it didn’t happen. And you can’t erase all the evidence for the flood.

...
And I know it because certain events would leave clear evidence. A lack of evidence can be evidence against an idea...

Lack of evidence shows only that you have no evidence, or you have not understood it, nothing more.

But, luckily, we have lot of evidence for the flood. If the flood really happened as told in the Bible, we should find:
1. modern continents
2. Oil and gas fields
3. Vast sedimentary formations
4. Marine fossils on high mountains
5. Have the story of those people who survived.
...

We have all those and so we have plenty of evidence that it really happened as told in the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know you can’t. There is simply nothing you can offer to prove it didn’t happen. And you can’t erase all the evidence for the flood.

What you are doing is pointing to your flaws not mine. I have endless evidence that the Flood of Noah never happened. You merely choose the irrational action of ignoring the evidence. I can show you why we know that there was no flood of Noah. I cannot force you to understand.

Lack of evidence shows only that you have no evidence, or you have not understood it, nothing more.

But, luckily, we have lot of evidence for the flood. If the flood really happened as told in the Bible, we should find:
1. modern continents
2. Oil and gas fields
3. Vast sedimentary formations
4. Marine fossils on high mountains
5. Have the story of those people who survived.
...

We have all those and so we have plenty of evidence that it really happened as told in the Bible.

No, you are confused again. A lack of evidence of an event can be evidence that the event did not happen if that event would have produced evidence.

And no, none of those are evidence for the Flood. In fact they are evidence against it. Like I said it appears that you do not understand what is and what is not evidence. For scientific discussions we use scientific evidence. Here is the definition. Tell me if you have any problems with it, it was developed with the idea that people can be deniers:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

It is from Wikipedia, but I can find several other scientific sites that use the same definition.

 

[1213]

… have endless evidence that the Flood of Noah never happened. ..
.

Why do you then say “A lack of evidence can be evidence against an idea” and don’t show the evidence?

 

[night912]

Why do you then say “A lack of evidence can be evidence against an idea” and don’t show the evidence?

He's referring to the lack of evidence of a global flood. A global flood should have left evidence behind, similar to that of local floods but, except the evidence should be on larger scale, as in global. So if there's no evidence of a global flood ever happening, that can be evidence that there was no global flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you then say “A lack of evidence can be evidence against an idea” and don’t show the evidence?

If an event would create obvious evidence and that evidence is not to be found you can be pretty sure that event never happened.

Here is an example, you hear on a news program that there was a large explosion in your city at the heart of the city. You think that is strange since you heard nothing. You go to check it out and there is no sign of an explosion anywhere. You got to the specific building that supposedly blew up and it is just fine. Now there are several likely explanations, maybe you heard a drama and not a news report, maybe you misunderstood, but it is clear that there was no explosion.

The same applies to the Earth. It would take over five miles of vertical water to cover the Earth. That is going to leave some kind of mark. There is no such mark to be found. Instead what we can see is that there were floods in very limited areas. And most of those that we can see were much smaller and older than the mythical flood of Genesis. If the flood of Genesis actually occurred it would have effectively "written over" those older records.

And before we go any further we need to define evidence properly. Since we are having a scientific discussion we need to use scientific evidence:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Trust me there is no scientific evidence for a flood. And the requirement for an observation to be evidence is rather low One must first have a testable hypothesis. If one is afraid to form one on of those and claims to be a scientist that means that one knows that he has no evidence. Or that person is lying. He or she may not be a scientist.

 

[1213]

If an event would create obvious evidence and that evidence is not to be found you can be pretty sure that event never happened.....

That is ok to me. Now, what do you think would be the results of a great flood that happened when the original continent collapsed and was broken to modern continents?

And as said before, there is lot of evidence for the great flood:

1. All living things on dry land were drowned -> we should find evidence of vast amount of dead organic material -> we can find oil, gas and coal, which is evidence for vast amount of organic material that sunk.

2. There was lot of water that carried sediments and other stuff -> we should find vast sedimentary formations -> we can find orogenic mountains and for example Grand Canyon, which all are evidence for the great flood as described in the Bible.

3. Before the flood, there was single continent and it was broken in the great flood event -> we should find remains of the single continent, several smaller continents -> we can find those.

4. Water covered all dry land -> we should find evidence for water covering even high mountain areas -> we can find marine fossils on high mountain areas, which is evidence for water covering the area at some point.

5. There were a group of people who survived -> we should find their testimony of the event -> we have the Bible. And in addition to that, many cultures have an idea of a great flood.

But, obviously, if you close willingly your eyes, you don’t see or understand.

 

[1213]

...A global flood should have left evidence behind, ...

I agree with that. But, to see the evidence, one should understand what really happened then, how the flood came, what caused it and what it meant. I think one reason why people don’t see the evidence that we have a lot, is because they imagine it was like some basic small flood.